U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-08-2019, 06:46 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
8,842 posts, read 2,658,662 times
Reputation: 6789

Advertisements

This is a great example of what I'm talking about. Note to moderators: This is a federal government write-up and, thus, has no copyright.

What can labor productivity tell us about the U.S. economy?
Quote:
This fact might strike some as surprising: workers in the U.S. business sector worked virtually the same number of hours in 2013 as they had in 1998—approximately 194 billion labor hours. What this means is that there was ultimately no growth at all in the number of hours worked over this 15-year period, despite the fact that the U.S population gained over 40 million people during that time, and despite the fact that there were thousands of new businesses established during that time.

And given this lack of growth in labor hours, it is perhaps even more striking that American businesses still managed to produce 42 percent—or $3.5 trillion—more output in 2013 than they had in 1998, even after adjusting for inflation.

Robots and AI will simply put this trend on steroids.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-08-2019, 06:49 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
8,842 posts, read 2,658,662 times
Reputation: 6789
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
This is the very same thing we were told by liberals in the 1970s about the move from a manufacturing to a service economy.

They said that the service jobs would be much "cleaner", higher paying, and allow more "leisure time".
1. It was not just "liberals" who were telling us that. It was ... just about everybody.
2. They were right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2019, 06:49 PM
 
Location: Middle of the ocean
31,269 posts, read 19,739,850 times
Reputation: 45138
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
People here are still making the mistake that 4 people will be out of a job. Just because I said that 1 person can now do what 5 people used to do, does not mean there will be 5 people looking for 1 job. I explicitly pointed out that the other 4 people will be doing things that the increased wealth of the 1 person will bring, AND that the process that benefited the first person will also eventually apply to the other 4 people in their new vocations, in a continuing process of productivity improvements and, thus, wealth creation.

I note that the process I described has been going on for at least 200 years. If it was true that people displaced by technology don't or can't get new jobs, then the unemployment rate would by now be astronomical. But it isn't.

Robots and AI are no different from other technologies. Electric street lights did not permanently put out of work the people who used to light and turn out gas street lamps 150 years ago - those people found other things to do. Robots and AI will be no different.
I think that what we have already seen in the manufacturing sector has kinda disproven some of what your are saying. A lot of those displaced have taken jobs that are well below their previous pay level.

I'm sure the "truth" is somewhere in between though. It's complicated.
__________________
____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2019, 06:53 PM
 
14,584 posts, read 3,867,544 times
Reputation: 10638
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
This is the very same thing we were told by liberals in the 1970s about the move from a manufacturing to a service economy.

They said that the service jobs would be much "cleaner", higher paying, and allow more "leisure time". Even then, I knew it was a lie and tried to argue with the high school teachers that no one can have "leisure time" without a job. That "leisure time" is what we call "unemployment". We now see the devastating effect of losing US manufacturing jobs.

As always, liberals will be wrong again.
What you fail to note are actual numbers - productivity HAS doubled and/or tripled. BUT, the money didn't go to the worker who produced more. In fact, none of it did. It went to Wall Street, billionaires and international interests (Saudis, Japanese, Chinese and many more)...

I was around in the 70's and have seen every slogan in the book...you make up some whoppers! I never once heard it said that we should move to a service economy. I have heard it said that this is what happened with the growth of computing power and with people living longer and with increased automation.

IMHO, you are showing ignorance of the subject to opine that somehow this was a plan...to de-industrialize the country! It was not. But given a choice, I don't think you will send your child to pack sand molds in a foundry if, instead, they can fix the machine that packs the sand molds better and faster.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2019, 06:54 PM
 
Location: Denver CO
790 posts, read 247,244 times
Reputation: 1873
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
People here are still making the mistake that 4 people will be out of a job. Just because I said that 1 person can now do what 5 people used to do, does not mean there will be 5 people looking for 1 job. I explicitly pointed out that the other 4 people will be doing things that the increased wealth of the 1 person will bring, AND that the process that benefited the first person will also eventually apply to the other 4 people in their new vocations, in a continuing process of productivity improvements and, thus, wealth creation.
What new vocations?

You keep saying the four unemployed workers would be supported by the extra income from the one who kept his job. But the idea that the one employed person's income would increase to the point that his expenditures would be enough to provide gainful employment for four other people is ludicrous.

You are basically saying that if 80% of people became unemployed, the remaining 20% who were working would make so much money that jobs would be created for all of them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2019, 06:59 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
8,842 posts, read 2,658,662 times
Reputation: 6789
Upwards Leisure Mobility: Americans Work Less and Have More LeisureTime than Ever Before
Quote:
As Americans have had to spend less time working to earn a living, they have had more time to spend doing things they enjoy. Aguiar and Hurst also examined changes in the amount of time Americans spend at leisure. Looking at the amount of time Americans spend on entertainment, social activities, relaxing, napping, eating, and playing with children, Americans enjoy about 7 hours per week more leisure than in 1965.

This represents a significant increase in the average American's quality of life. Americans today have significantly more to devote to their own pursuits than did Americans a generation ago.
If you think about this, it's so obvious.

Think of sports, for example: The reason why we have sports players who make millions of dollars per year, and play in stadiums costing hundreds of millions of dollars, is because we have so much time and money these days to spend on leisure activities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2019, 07:03 PM
 
14,584 posts, read 3,867,544 times
Reputation: 10638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey2k View Post
What new vocations?

You are basically saying that if 80% of people became unemployed, the remaining 20% who were working would make so much money that jobs would be created for all of them.
This is somewhat the truth even as we speak!

Take a family of four.....stay at home mom or dad. Two kids in school. OK, so already only 25% of the people involved "work" for money.

Add in the 1/2 of jobs that are basically useless...or, even a suction to the economy, and you can start to see that it would take very little to keep everyone in the basics.

This was not true in the past - but it's one of the problems of the "conservative" way of thinking. A person selling just another MLM timeshares, Amway, the Fad Diet or whatever else...is not really producing. They are just keeping busy and spinning the wheels...and, in fact, creating trash and pollution and stuff that we'd be better off without.

Now...we COULD employ a lot of these people doing REAL things, but the USA does not have a planned economy. We won't build out high-speed rail, which could employ a million people easily. We just won't do it because we value only the $$$, not the method used to produce it or the end result of such.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2019, 07:06 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
6,754 posts, read 3,388,914 times
Reputation: 2820
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
People here are still making the mistake that 4 people will be out of a job. Just because I said that 1 person can now do what 5 people used to do, does not mean there will be 5 people looking for 1 job. I explicitly pointed out that the other 4 people will be doing things that the increased wealth of the 1 person will bring, AND that the process that benefited the first person will also eventually apply to the other 4 people in their new vocations, in a continuing process of productivity improvements and, thus, wealth creation.

I note that the process I described has been going on for at least 200 years. If it was true that people displaced by technology don't or can't get new jobs, then the unemployment rate would by now be astronomical. But it isn't.

Robots and AI are no different from other technologies. Electric street lights did not permanently put out of work the people who used to light and turn out gas street lamps 150 years ago - those people found other things to do. Robots and AI will be no different.

You keep ignoring that greed has wiped out whatever income gains workers were supposed to be making. You pointed to increased productivity for the last few years. And yet we've seen hardly any wage growth for the last 40 years.

Let's not excuse the culprits of this by creating fantasies about how wages are paid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2019, 07:06 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
8,842 posts, read 2,658,662 times
Reputation: 6789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey2k View Post
... You are basically saying that if 80% of people became unemployed, the remaining 20% who were working would make so much money that jobs would be created for all of them.
I just proved to you, in the post at the top of this page, that 1 worker these days is more than 5 times as productive as workers from 1947.

And once again, you mistakenly assumed that 80% of the people would become unemployed. This is false. As I've pointed out multiple times by now, they would do other things.

Also, I should point out this is a process, not an overnight thing. In reality, 4 people would not "overnight" suddenly become unemployed, first one would go, and the remaining 4 would be more productive. Then another would go, and the remaining 3 would become more productive. And so on.

And still again: if the objections of people like you were true, the unemployment rate now would be astronomical, since this process has already been going on for over 200 years.

Will I need to point that out again? Sadly, I probably will.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2019, 07:08 PM
 
Location: Divided Tribes of America
13,519 posts, read 5,456,582 times
Reputation: 5286
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
This is the very same thing we were told by liberals in the 1970s about the move from a manufacturing to a service economy.

They said that the service jobs would be much "cleaner", higher paying, and allow more "leisure time". Even then, I knew it was a lie and tried to argue with the high school teachers that no one can have "leisure time" without a job. That "leisure time" is what we call "unemployment". We now see the devastating effect of losing US manufacturing jobs.

As always, liberals will be wrong again.
You are correct. But why do you say it was “liberals” who were pushing a service economy? If anything, it was probably greedy capitalists.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top